CERTIORARI -- SUMMARY DISPOSITION

the judgment below in Whitman v. American Trucking Assns., Inc., 531 U.S. ____ (2001). Therefore, the petitions for writs of certiorari are granted and the cases are remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for further proceedings.

00-6808 VALENSIA, ELIODORO V. UNITED STATES

The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for further consideration in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000).

ORDERS IN PENDING CASES

00M70 COOK, PADRAIC A. V. DORMIRE, SUPT., JEFFERSON CCC

The motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for a writ of certiorari out-of-time is denied.

00M71 MELKA MARINE, INC. V. UNITED STATES

The motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

105, ORIG. KANSAS V. COLORADO

The motion of the Acting Solicitor General for divided argument is granted.

128, ORIG. ALASKA V. UNITED STATES

The amended complaint and answer are referred to the Special Master.

00-454 ATKINSON TRADING CO. V. SHIRLEY, JOE, ET AL.

The motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument is granted.

CERTIORARI GRANTED

The motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted.

00-878 MATHIAS, RICHARD L., ET AL. V. WorldCOM TECH., INC., ET AL.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to the following questions: 1. Whether a state commissions action relating to the enforcement of a previously approved section 252 interconnection agreement is a determination under [section 252] and thus is reviewable in federal court under 47 U.S.C. §252(e)(6). 2. Whether a state commissions acceptance of Congress invitation to participate in implementing a federal regulatory scheme that provides that state commission determinations are reviewable in federal court constitutes a waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity. 3. Whether an official capacity action seeking prospective relief against state public utility commissioners for alleged ongoing violations of federal law in performing federal regulatory functions under the federal Telecommuncations Act of 1996 can be maintained under the Ex parte Young doctrine. Justice O'Connor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

The motion of Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Health and Welfare Fund for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. The motion of American Association of Health Plans, Inc., et al., for leave to file a brief as amici curiae is granted. The motion of ERISA Industry Committee for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

00-948 UNITED AIRLINES, INC. V. FRANK, LESLIE, ET AL.

The motion of Council for Employment Law Equity for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. The motion of Equal Employment Advisory Council for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

00-1102 BAWAZIR, TAHIR M. V. MAHFOUZ, SHEIKH K.

The motion of petitioner for leave to lodge documents under seal is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

00-7796 ATRAQCHI, MICHAEL R., ET UX. V. DARUI, FAZIL

The motion of petitioners for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ of certiorari is dismissed. See Rule 39.8.

00-7963 STONE, ALFRED L. V. TEXAS

The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ of certiorari is dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As the petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court's process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and the petition is submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1 (1992) (per curiam). Justice Stevens dissents. See id., at 4, and cases cited therein.